Christians have a creation story that makes the case for making legal the use of Marijuana or weed. The story goes that after God had created the first man and woman, God then freely planted the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, although he knew it bore a so-called “bad” fruit for Adam and Eve. In other words, God’s opinion of what was good and what was bad did not prevent him from freely making it available for his own two human creations. In fact, according to Christian doctrine, so powerful were the consequences for eating the fruit from the Tree of Life that it seemed a bit odd that God allowed the tree within reach of Adam and Eve in the first place.

The oddity of this Christian cosmology has haunted many Christian theologians for hundreds of years. Some, admitting as they believe that all the problems of all humankind rest solely on the idea that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Life. If this action was the will of God, then Adam and Eve had no control over their actions and cannot be blamed for the mistake. If this was the will of Adam and Eve, why would a God who loves his children, his own top-of-the-line creation, beset them on a path that would eventually make them sin? Why would God provide the temptation of sinning, of eating the fruit from the Tree of Life, to Adam and Eve, when he knew that the entire destiny of the ensuing populations of humankind would rest on this (mis-)action?

However that one chooses to resolve the incident of the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life, what remains is the indefatigable idea that even God does not prevent his own children from making decisions for themselves, good or bad. What remains is that God is so wise as to allow individuals he had created to charter their own paths as physical and spiritual beings so long as what consequences they suffer is entirely their own. God, in a nutshell does not ban from his human creations what he has also created for them no matter what the consequences of the inactions and (mis-)actions on the people may be.

The reading is revealing in two senses: (1) What God has created let no man ban no matter the direct consequences of the actions of those who willfully partake in the use of God’s creation, and the second point is that (2) God himself does not despise what he has created else he wouldn’t create it. Which also means that Man is individually inspired and motivated by God to charter his own life causes and to suffer the direct consequences of his own actions. The implications ensue as follows: (1) Marijuana or weed is God’s creation. Another way to put this is that Weed is nature, or natural. And for this reason (2) Weed cannot be despised either by God or by Man no matter what anyone might think the consequences for using it might be, or not.

The choice then of using Weed, or Marijuana, rests not on a government, or another person, or the law, or on some religious doctrine. The choice, it seems to me, at least from the Bible and from Christian cosmology, rests solely within the prerogative of the Will of Man. And for that matter the use of Weed must remain an individual choice, not God’s, not a government’s decree, and certainly not on some law. According to Christian cosmology, Man is free to use natural creations (made for him by God) as he wishes so long as he is aware of the direct consequences of his own actions.

A new paradox arises in countries that purport to be Christian nations, but where Marijuana remains illegal. More notably the United States of America, which gallivants the planet as a Christian nation, and which believes to have been ordained by God to be an exceptional nation, and yet is the biggest obstructer (sinner) of the Will of God. The United States have murdered and put more African men in jail for absolutely no law enforcement reason for Marijuana offenses alone than the Belgians massacred millions of East Africans in the Congo alone in the name of primitive accumulation. The problem of the United States is that it attempts to play God but it ends up playing Satan—internally colonizing its African populations and exporting perpetual wars outside of the United States for the blind sake of more and more primitive accumulation.

Instead, what Christian doctrine reveals is that if the United States were truly a Christian nation as it proclaims that it is, it would clean up its evil act. It would release, apologize and remunerate the African victims of its four decades of the war on drugs (The War on African Americans). All this is to say that the record is straight, the motivation is clear that God is a mindful being. He accords Men respect in the choices that they make but God does not shy from allowing the natural flow (not that enforced by government or law or person) of the direct consequences of Man’s actions to descend upon Man with the full force of its might. God is natural, and so he lets the natural be. Marijuana is a natural plant, let it be. Men will make choices to use Marijuana, let them have their will. For this is in fact the true nature of God, at least according to the Christian doctrine.


  1. Great write up. My thoughts:

    There is a slight nuance when it comes to Marijuana that needs to be addressed. Many weed smokers argue that the cannabis plant is natural and has medicinal properties. The problem however is that the original cannabis plant that was grown and consumed in Asia and Latin America in ancient times is NOT the Cannabis plant grown today. The contemporary plants are a grafted version that were initially researched and developed by the CIA under President Nixon.

    Since that time a number of private companies have developed new strains of the plant for which hundreds of patents exist. Bayer, Monsanto and a host of other agriculture companies own patents to many of these plants.

    So when one smokes weed today, one is not smoking God’s natural herb but a man-made version that is high on THC instead of CBD which was the constitution of the original plant. THC gives the high feeling and that ingredient was negligible in the original plant while CBD was a larger ingredient.

    • Interesting argument there! Although do you see another argument that even if the original has been tampered with, it still cannot be fully argued that the plant is artificial? For instance, rice has gone through many hybrid iterations by farmers. Most food crops have. Will one say that these crops are artificially engineered also for one desired effect or another?

    • Well what we do know is that the plant that God created isn’t the current Cannabis plant so we have no way of knowing if God wants us to smoke it.

      Whether a modified plant is artificial or not we can argue both sides. But if your argument is that plants in their ORIGINAL and NATURAL state are intended for our use then that should only remain true if we leave them in that state.

    • Nye Bro. I see your point. Ultimately it seems the argument rests in what one perceives to be natural or not. Of course, this idea has grave consequences. I understand. You raise an important issue. Would you then say that since it is not my fault that some wicked institution decided to modify the Kenkey I eat, that I should be allowed to take my chances with it, and proceed to eat it anyway and suffer my own consequences anaaa? Rather than allow the same institution to then police me into the very thing I used to be in the first place.

      Imagine a world where the CIA modifies rice and beans, and then proceeds to command and to police Ghanaians to no longer make Waatsey. What? If everything someone touches becomes their reserve to control it, then I differ. I think, and this is what I believe, that another person’s or institution’s modification of a natural plant has absolutely nothing to do with my God-ordained free will, or choice to use the thing or not (original or modified). I should be allowed to practice my rights whether or not someone finds it prudent/evil to modify something without an official letter from God/Nature or myself. Else the CIA alone can prevent all of us from even growing food. Which is where they are leading (with GMOs).

    • Narmer Amenuti Of course you have every right to consume the modified plant or substance. My point though is whether we can say God intended for us to consume the modified product.

  2. Elhadj, the Tree of Life was available and had they eaten of that, there was no penalty. Instead, they were deceived into eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which carried a penalty. To prevent them from living eternally with the consequences of their action, God sent them out of the garden He had planted. In Revelations, we who overcome are promised the Tree of Life which Adam and Eve missed out on. Hope this helps!

    • You do realize though that the detail you offer does not affect the structure of the argument. Which is that whatever the detail of that story is, as you might claim, the point is the Tree (of Life or of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was there, and it was made accessible to Adam and Eve. Now, I ask, why would a loving God make such a thing accessible if not for his absolute law of allowing Man to do as he pleases with natural creations, no matter the consequences? Why outlaw natural things now and keep them inaccessible to Men? This, I believe, is my point.

    • I don’t think so. There is no issue with the premise. Whatever the detail of that story is, as you might claim, the point is the Tree (of Life or of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was there, and it was made accessible to Adam and Eve. Now, I ask, why would a loving God make such a thing accessible if not for his absolute law of allowing Man to do as he pleases, no matter the consequences?

    • Narmer Amenuti that is true. But also note, that man was given enough information to guide in his choosing.
      I side with you. We make choices and we live with it’s consequences. It is only a good GOD who will do so. Anaa?

    • Yes, hence I find it unnatural the idea that Man must ban (or make inaccessible) other creations of God from other Men, when the direct consequences are the Man’s choices! It is not even as if Marijuana is not made accessible to others. It is. In the US many whites smoke weed all the time. In fact the data shows that more white people smoke weed than any body. Yet more Black men go to jail far more than whites for possession.

      I guess, one implication I am alluding to is that when Men make something illegal, they have ulterior motives: they wish to profit from both its Cartel Distribution and from the profits accruing to the institutions of Crime & Punishment. Let humans be, and let Mary Jane alone. Word.

    • Narmer Amenuti well, I do understand, but I don’t suppose you’d agree I go for someone’s wife because I know the consequences, or rape another. The black vs white angle is also true. Weed smokers should continue smoking, but I do not agree that a law should be made to back them up. Else, pretty soon, rapists and other vices actors would request for legalisation of their acts.

    • Oh well that’s harsh. I think. I wonder if an argument can be made that raping someone else’s wife (or anyone for that matter) is a natural event, and if so one that does not harm another person directly? Weed is a natural occurrence, and anyone who uses it is not forcing anyone against their will. Or are they?

      Rape is unnatural since it forces others against their will and the consequences of such an action is not only directly staged on the criminal, but the victim as well. Using weed has no direct victims except for the user.

  3. Great as always. Anytime such mindless verses is uttered in my presence i simply ask i thought your God is all knowing and knew me long before i was born? How did he miss to know those fruits would be eaten? it’s all lie don’t you think?

    • Yes. Although I call such stories fables. I think they are stories to illustrate some moral imperative than they are real documents of what may have happened or not. For instance, I find some of the passages enlightening, in the Christian sense, so much so that I wonder why Christians are so big on banning weed, especially banning weed in so-called Christian nations like the USA.

    • Oh yeah. They are allegories (surprisingly it’s stated in the bible) and fables but these mentally colonized people want to make it real. The stories are copied from kemet. They represent lessons abt life and the world as humans come to know

    • They have given names and personified our ancient myth. I teach in a Christian University and some people get amazed when I explain the origin of some of the “Christian” festivals.

    • Keep doing it. I honestly think it’s due to lack of information that’s why our people got stuck in the lies

  4. Government, church , authority, culture etc does not want the people’s minds to free up! So they wrap it into a demonized fable ..

  5. If god is nature (natural) then god is not a “Christian”. In not so many words, it’s natural law that invoked the existence of man and not man (or a man made god) that invokes natural law.

    The laws of nature preceded the existence of man and are universal; applying to all matter. Man cannot exist without these laws for it is these laws that have ordered matter to create a conducive habitation for the eventual spawning of human species. It’s these same laws that conspired the rise and fall of dinosaurs; which preceded the existence of man by an estimated 65 million years.

    Accordingly, being solely offsprings of nature, humans are bound to be subject to nature in its entirety. Whatever actions we take we act within the limits of what natural law permits. All human acts are natural acts. The base of human action is natural law upon which man then builds social rules to aid in his interactions with fellow man. And in establishing these social rules, people normally invoke a “higher power” as a means to enforce adherence to whatever set of social norms a particular society holds.

    In contrast, the “god of nature” has no specific laws for a presumably “chosen” people. Likewise, drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana are human acts and by extension natural acts; but those who choose to do so will be subject to the peculiar sensations arising from the triggering of the natural chain reactions set in motion by these acts. Perhaps to minimize on the social frictions that sometimes arise from such indulgences, the image of an “offended god” wagging his finger at those breaking social mores comes in handy…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.